Difference Between Behaviorism and Mentalism

By Megan Kelly ; Updated June 28, 2018

Behaviorism and mentalism are two theories that you learn about in a psychology course.
Behaviorism is based on observation and empirical evidence, whereas mentalism relies
on pure belief. The theory of behaviorism suggests that behavior is simply a conditioned
response to certain triggers, or stimuli, that occurs without regard to feelings. By
contrast, mentalism is a theory based on the perceived power of thought pr ocesses,
learned through experience or through an apprenticeship with an experienced mentalist.

Stimulus Response

Behaviorism is a theory that is based around the study of behaviors in humans and
animals in response to negative or positive stimulation. One of the most well-known
studies in behaviorism is the study conducted by Ivan Pavlov. He observed that, over
time, a dog would begin to salivate after hearing a bell ring because the dog associated it
with food being placed in front of it. Dogs naturally salivate in the presence of meat,
which is an unconditioned response to the simulus of food. Repeated bell ringing
associated with feeding is a conditioned stimulus that causes a dog to salivate when a
bell is rung, even if food is not offered. This experim ent demonstrates what is known as
classic conditioning in behavioral learning theory.

Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning is another aspect of behaviorism that studies the behaviors of

humans and animals that operate on environmental factors that cre ate negative or
positive consequences. Also known as response -stimulus, operant conditioning allows
the study participant to associate certain behaviors with either positive or negative
consequences and learn from these consequences. One example was found by Edward
Thorndike, who observed that cats in a puzzle box associated getting out of the maze
with a food reward. This positive reinforcement shaped the behavior of the cats and
conditioned them to immediately open the trap door for the reward.

Mind Power

Mentalism is a part of the field of magic that states that phenomena in the physical and
psychological realms are performed by magicians who supposedly possess intuitive and
mental powers that are highly developed. Some tricks that are a part of mentalism
include mind reading and hypnosis. The illusion of a highly developed intuition is meant
to convince the audience that the magician has a connection to the spiritual world or that
he possesses supernatural powers.
Tricks

A mentalist can perform a variety of tricks that convince the audience that she has
extreme mental powers. Some of these tricks include psychokinesis, fortune telling,
spoon bending and mind reading. A mentalist also may try to predict outcomes of games,
answer questions without knowing the question or burn stigmata of a secretly selected
symbol into her skin. Some tricks may have harmful drawbacks, such as skin burns,
explosions or physical injury from full-body contact.

Language acquisition seems to be a process both of analogy and application, both nature and
nurture. The differences between the empiricists approach and that of the rationalist can be
summarized in the following manner:

MENTALIST APPROACH
1) Language is an innate, in-born process.
2) Children learn language by application.
3) Language is not a behavior like other behaviors, but a specific mental process.
4) The role of exposure to language is quite vital.
5) Language learning is analytical, generative and creation.
6) Language acquisition is the result of nurture.
BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH
1) Language acquisition is a stimulus- response process.
2) Children learn language by imitation and analogy.
3) Language is a conditioned behavior.
4) The role of imitation, repetition, reinforcement and motivation is very
significant in
language learning.
5) Language learning is based on practice.
6) Language acquisition is the result of nature.
Conclusion:
Finally, after analyzing both the theories about first language acquisition by the child, such as
Behaviourism and Mentalism, it can be concluded that Chomsky subscribes to an entirely different
view of learning from that of behaviourists. He follows a mentalist approach which means
something which involves the mind and the thought processes. Most psychologists of language
agree with this theory. Behaviourism may not tell us much about the way in which we learn our
mother tongue, but it can point to successful strategies in the learning of a foreign language when
we are older. This comparative study makes one thing clear: nature and nurture, analogy and
application, practice and exposure are important. Innate potentialities lay down the framework.
Having been exposed to a small number of utterances, the child begins to extract the principles
underlying the utterances and compose new utterances of his own. In a period of about four years,
he is able to master and internalize all the essential rules of language.
BEHAVIORISM VS MENTALISM

Behaviourism claims that environment is responsible for learning, this means that this
The Behaviourist theory works according to the Habit Formation process, when this is applied to
learning
this means that the learner is presented with stimuli on which he makes a specific response to
each, and every time the learner is presented with this stimulus he responds with the same
response until it becomes a habit.
The Mentalist theory came as a reaction to the Behaviourist theory. It opposed the claim that the
environment is responsible for learning by proving that the mind is responsible for it. Chomsky said
that the human being is endowed since birth with a biological device called the Language
Acquisition Devise and it develops like any organ. When applied to teaching , Mentalism means
that the learner should use his cognitive abilities in order to learn. This enhances critical thinking
and goes hand in hand with the Constructivist theory proving that the learner builds knowledge
through time relying on his cognitive strategies.

nowadays both theories are widely used.

Behaviorism V Mentalism

"Mentalism" Explains the Language Within

Noam Chomsky

Chomsky would argue that language is innate. Not that there is a predisposition or innate ability
towards a particular type or specific language, but towards an understanding of the universal
constructs and patterns of a language system. Interaction is still absolutely necessary, as children
learn the specific language by living as a part of that community and experiencing it in daily life.
Chomsky rejected the scientific method as an integral part of language study because it limits
what we can accept and doesn't necessarily guarantee objectivity.

Chomsky discusses the difference between two distinct methods of coding an understanding of
language: competence and performance.

Competence

Competence is defined by Chomsky as the imagined ideal of linguistic structure. It is a knowledge

of the structures and total system picture of language. Chomsky has assumed that people
possess an innate understanding of linguistic structure, which makes the system and its
components largely unconscious to speakers.

Performance

Chomsky differentiates what happens during communication in real-time as performance. Where

competence describes an understanding of the whole system, performance describes the way we
actually speak in single instances.

The importance of this distinction is that mentalism incorporates an understanding of the

difference between the way our brains organize and understand concepts and the way we then
employ those concepts in our actual lives.

Behaviorism V Mentalism

"Behaviourism" Explains How Children Learn

Burrhus F. Skinner

Skinner wanted to study language using the scientific method to make it more credible. He didn't
want to allow for the idea of mental structures because the mind (as opposed to the biological
construct of the brain) cannot be observed from an objective view. He saw human individuals as
complex machines who would respond to external stimulus based on the reinforcement or
punishment of past experiences.

Skinner Views language as an input-output function with an emphasis on the impact of the
external environment. He would believe in traditional theories of acquisition in which learning is
driven by the exchange of data and meaning for sound patterns. Skinner would argue that children
can be taught by repetition and conditioning. They can pick up meaning through naming
processes which introduce them to concrete objects and concepts.

Some important arguments were presented against Skinner based on the fact that the number of
possible sentence structures is infinite. The unpredictability of these potential structures overturns
some of his explanations.

Behaviorism V Mentalism

"Behaviourism" Explains How Children Learn

Jean Piaget

Piaget believed that learning is a function of the environment. His cognitive theories
could be described as post-behaviorist in the sense that they not only allow for
mental structures, they actually demand it. The unpredictability of sentence
structures and possible utterances is necessary to explain the logical sequences of
learning he indicates. He argues that there must be an understanding of basic
practical concepts before we can begin to put ideas into words.

Piaget discusses two initial stages that he believes must occur prior to language development:

Sensori-Motor Exploration

In stage one, children learn by using the senses to experience and categorize or identify objects
and activities and coming to a conclusion from the experience. These activities build and develop
mental structures, which is a key aspect of Piaget's theories. Children also develop an
understanding for what Piaget calls "practical schemes of action," which may be more familiar to
us as simple matters of cause and effect.

Pre-Operational

The second stage occurs during the period before the mind can carry out logical or mathematical
operations. Once children understand the simpler concept of cause and effect, they can begin to
develop what Piaget calls "relational schemes of action," which allows for a more complex
understanding of the possibilites of effect within a certain cause. This is also generally the stage at
which language develops.
 Compare and contrast two theories of language development
“Language is the main way in which human beings communicate.” (Beaver, M et Al. 2001. p.139). It is
used in different ways to socialise and express a persons needs. There are four main theories of
language development but I will explore those of Noam Chomsky and B F Skinner.
In the 1960’s Chomsky explored the idea that “language development is innate and genetically
predetermined.” (Bruce, T and Meggitt, C. 2005. p.113). He believed that children are born with the
necessary physical and intellectual abilities to acquire language, and therefore are able to invent
new words and sentences that they have not previously heard. He suggests children learn to talk
through their Language Acquisition Device (LAD). He suggests this structure consists of speech-
producing mechanisms, the ability to understand, and parts of the brain. Chomsky’s theory is
therefore a nature theory as he states the “ability to learn language is instinctive.” (Tassoni, P. 2006.
p.424).
Skinner’s theory is a nurture theory, as he believes that we learn language through encouragement
and reinforcement. He suggests that “we learn language mainly because when babies try to
communicate, their efforts are rewarded or reinforced in some way” (Tassoni, P. 2006. p.423) and so this
is a nurture approach. Parents or carers reinforce or encourage the baby through smiles, eye
contact and spoken encouragement. Skinner believes that it is “this idea of reinforcement” (Tassoni,
P. 2006. p.423) that explains why babies stop making some sounds. He suggests that if the child
doesn’t hear any reinforcement or recognition of a sound then they will stop making it. He called
this ‘selective reinforcement’. It is this theory that explains, “why children speak in similar ways to
their parents, using the familiar phrases and intonation.” (Tassoni, P. 2006. p.423). Skinner’s approach is
a behaviourist approach- believing that children learn from other children and adults’ behaviour.
These two theories are contrasting as one suggests that language development is through nature,
and the other through nurture. In short it is either developed through what we get at birth, or how
we are brought up. It is suggested that a child learns language through aspects, nature and
nurture, as “there is some genetic sensitivity to language, but that children’s experiences after birth are
very important in their development of language.” (Beaver, M et Al. 2001. p.149).
Chomsky’s theory is commonly acknowledged as it is comprehensive and explains why all babies’
language development follows a pattern, unlike Skinner’s theory. If Skinner’s nurture approach is
accurate then each child’s language development should vary according to the amount of
reinforcement and praise they are given. It is universally known that all children pass through the
same stages at similar times, regardless of the amount of reinforcement. So whether a child’s
language development is instinctive, or if it is learnt by observation and reinforcement, is
inconclusive. However I have seen at placement how children can learn language through praise,
encouragement and reinforcement. Structures like Jolly Phonics and Letterland help to reinforce
phonetics to children through memory cues and word and letter association. In early years books
words are often repeated as the repetition of words helps children to repeat and remember the
information, and therefore allows them to learn. I have also seen in placement in both the reception
and Year 1 classes how repetition and reinforcement of words can help children learn. When reading
words for the first time, or words that they struggle with, they are encouraged to repeat the word
three times. By doing this the repetition helps them to remember the word. Also when a child is
struggling to read a word, they are encouraged to sound the letters out to help them say the whole
word. As this is something the children are familiar with and is reinforced often, most will sound the
letters out themselves to try and work out what the word says. They have learnt to do this through
reinforcement, and through praise from being told when they are doing well.
Parents or carers can reinforce and encourage language through the acknowledgment of spoken
praise and eye contact. This helps children gain confidence in what they are saying and children who
are actively encouraged to speak will acquire more words and sounds naturally.
When I did a speaking and listening activity with some reception children they showed that at the end
of the activity they had recalled some of the basic information that they had told me and were able to
repeat this to the class teacher. Through repetition and reinforcement they had been able to
remember and recall information when asked.
References:
 Beaver, M et Al (2001) Babies and Young Children. Nelson Thornes.
 Bruce, T and Meggitt, C (2005) Child Care and Education- 3rd edition. Hodder Arnold.
 Tassoni, P (2006) BTEC National Early Years- 2nd edition. Heinemann.
CHOMSKY VS SKINNER: DEBATE OF THE CENTURY

Introduction

Before the 1960's most psychologists agreed upon BF Skinner's language acquisition theory
which explained language acquisition with behaviorist principles which contested that it is through
reinforcement that children learn a language. It was not until, as Skinner puts it, "a 55 page typed
written review by someone whom I had never heard of named Noam Chomsky" was issued in
response to BF Skinner's 1957 book Verbal Behavior in 1958 that a serious debate arose. Within a
few years Chomsky's review "began to be widely cited and reproduced" and furthermore "became
better known than the original book to which it responded to" leading to a fierce debate among
linguists of the era (1). As the two theories and the disparity between them grew further a certain
competition between Skinner and Chomsky which had not existed before was implied, and then
amplified. Some said that Chomsky was a "modern intellectual descendant" of rationalist Rene
Descartes, arguing that humans think even before they are conscious of their own existence, while
Skinner was a "modern intellectual descendant" of John Locke, instead arguing for the idea of a
"blank slate" or "tabula rasa" (1).

BF Skinner was more or less the pioneer of language acquisition theories. His theory that
language was acquired under the principles of reinforcement was the first and most widely
accepted language acquisition theory of the late 1950's and 1960's. Skinner argued that children
acquired language under the principles of reinforcement, that they associated words with
meanings. Essentially, if a child correctly pronounces a word or correctly composes a sentence
with the correct grammatical structure they are met with reassurance and approval from their
caregivers (4). For example, if an infant correctly pronounces the word "milk" and his or her
mother responds with a smile and a bottle of milk, the infant is reinforced to pronounce the word
the way he or she initially did and is assured of the meaning of the word (4). Skinner was heavily
influenced by John Locke and the idea that humans are born with a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"
and was one of the foremost behaviorists of the century. He said that in his opinion explaining
"behavior without appealing to any prior causes" is a "hopeless task," which is a behaviorist view
(1). For this reason he strongly disagreed with Noam Chomsky and other structuralists. BF
Skinner conducted many experiments including placing rats and pigeons into "operant conditioning
chambers" to condition them to behave in certain ways (2). He used the principles of his
experiments to explain language acquisition.
Noam Chomsky is one of the most polarizing figures in the field of linguistics and psychology. He
exploded into stardom in the intellectual world in the 1960's when he wrote a critique to the great
BF Skinner's book on language acquisition, Verbal Behavior, over time the critique became more
accepted than the original work itself and is now one of the most widely cited works in the field of
linguistics. The critique argued that language cannot be solely acquired by reinforcement and that
there must be some innate structure or genetic component that helps humans acquire language
(3). Chomsky said that the speed of which children acquire language is too rapid and too
remarkable for it to possibly be explained by reinforcement, he said that if children acquired
language through reinforcement it would take much longer than 2 years for children to understand
the basic structures of their first language (4). He also pointed out that of the many species of
animals in the world that humans are the only ones capable and creative enough to engage in
conversation, meaning that there must be some inborn trait that allows us to learn language (1).
That supposition was proven in the 1960's, when a group of linguists tried to teach a chimpanzee,
dubbed "Nim Chimpsky" to learn English sign language and engage in conversation with humans,
they found that after years of training the chimpanzee could do no more than ask for basic items,
meaning that there must be an isolated gene present primarily in humans that allows them to
engage in conversation (1). Chomsky also used a more personal approach of common sense, he
argued that "humans are not genetically programmed to learn one or another language" and that if
he "brought up a Japanese baby in Boston it would speak Boston English" and if he raised his own
child in Japan it "would speak Japanese," and vice versa, he used this basic truth to argue that all
languages must therefore share the same innate structure, this idea became known as universal
grammar (1). Chomsky's main argument against behaviorist views of language acquisition can
perhaps be summarized by his quote "if in fact our minds were a blank slate we would be very
impoverished creatures, indeed" (1). Over the last 45 years Noam Chomsky's theory of universal
grammar has superseded behaviorist theories of language acquisition, namely those of BF
Skinner and have become widely agreed upon and studied by the scientific community.
THE "DEBATE"
The difference between Chomsky and Skinner's beliefs can most simply be put as such: Skinner
believes that language is learned, whereas Chomsky believes that language is innate, and is
simply developed. It is also important to understand the psychological approaches that each man
belongs to, Skinner is a behaviorist, whereas Chomsky is a structuralist. In many ways, the
"debate" between the two men is simply a reincarnation of the timless question of "nature versus
nurture," which people have found is impossible to answer most of the time. Before analyzing the
"debate of the century" it is important to understand that although the two theories were hotly
debated, the two men never engaged in dialectical dialogue. In fact, Skinner never bothered to
write a response to Chomsky's critique of his Verbal Behavior saying rather immaturely that he
had "no inclination to do so at all" because to respond he "should've had to read it and had no
intention of doing that" and because he "found it boring" (1). Later on, BBC proposed a televised
debate between the two psychologists, which BF Skinner refused, saying that "Chomsky loves to
talk, so I told them that I would go on for a debate under the condition that they guarantee that we
would receive equal speaking time" he then said jokingly that "if anyone wished to disprove Alfred
Adler's thesis that a man goes into a field which he has some natural shortcoming, I suggest he
cite Chomsky" (1). At the end of Skinner's life he said that he saw no reason to respond to
Chomsky's critique since "a wonderful psychologist named Kenneth MacCorquodale has already
picked apart Chomsky's review of my book page by page for me" (1). Supporters of Chomsky say
that "Skinner is nothing but a stimulus response psychologist" or that Skinner thinks "people are
nothing more than pigeons" or more humorously that "we should lock up Skinner and give
Chomsky a carte blanche" (1). Since Skinner never gave a formal response to Chomsky and
allowed a "Chomskyan revolution" to occur in the field of linguistics in the 1960's the verdict as to
which psychological mind reigns superior will always be an open ended question, without any sort
of consensus. Although it should be known that if there ever was a true debate between Chomsky
and Skinner, that Chomsky won under the principles of both forfeiture and acceptance. Chomsky's
theory of universal grammar is now the most widely cited linguistic theory and the most respected
by the scientific community (5). There are still heavy death metal behaviorist sympathizers,
though, but only time will tell whose theory was correct.
 CONCLUSION
Like many things in psychology, and in a broader sense, science, the issue of language
acquisition is still without a definite answer. It is our task as humans to engage in the praxis of
inquiry and conversly to seek out evidence and rationale to support our claims. People like myself
have a certain advantage, though. We are humbled by the lack of acuity that makes us merely
observers, but at the same time we hold a position over the brilliant minds that offer up their work
for our judgement. No matter how intelligent men like Noam Chomsky and BF Skinner may be, it is
still the the observer that holds the power of consensus. The debate between Skinner and
Chomsky on language acquisition has become a bone of contention because of the longevity of
the debate and the questions it reintroduces. But like the truism that in science there are rarely
definite answers, there is another truism which could help us come to a compromise. That is the
truism and the possibility that is often overlooked, that maybe, both of these men were correct in
their suppositions of language. Which is why I contest that we look at the debate from a
biopsychosocial perspective rather than from a behaviorist perspective like Skinner, or a
structuralist perspective, like Chomsky. By looking at language acquistion from a biopsychosocial
perspective we effectively confront this truism, that in life there is often more than one truth. Lastly,
it is important to recognize the contributions that a simple disagreement of men have had on
psychology. Both Chomsky and Skinner's theories have led to significant scientific advancements.
Skinner's theory of language acquisition and his use of operant conditioning to explain how the
process occurs has led to very practical real world applications, such as in the classroom or in the
workplace (6). Chomsky's theory of universal grammar has led to and inspired many important
studies on idigenous tongues in the Amazon particularly, but also other isolated societies around
the world. Such as the study on the Amazon tribe that has no numeracy, which was actually meant
to disprove Chomsky, but nonetheless was only conducted because of him (7). In many ways, the
lack of agreement upon which theory is correct has driven both Noam Chomsky and BF Skinner to
expand upon their theories, conduct new experiments and studies, and perhaps most importantly,
inspire new generations of psychologists seeking to continue the endless endeavor of
understanding language.
-Doug

HOW DOES SKINNER AND CHOMSKY'S EXPLANATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

GRAMMAR DIFFER ?

The two men share greatly differing views and ideas to the
acquisition of grammar in humans. Skinner, a behavioural
psychologist and Chomsky a linguist, their branches of science are
already different. Skinner's explanation of language was that any
acquisition was due to a learning process involving the shaping of
grammar into a correct form by the re-enforcement of other stimulus,
correct grammar is positively re-enforced and will be used in the
future, and incorrect grammar is negatively re-enforced and will be
not be used again. Chomsky differed in his view that human grammar
acquisition is an innate biological ability that all humans possess,
and viewed some form of `generative grammar' which he felt could
explain the rapid acquisition and creative nature of grammar and
language. Skinner proposed a `finite', (single word) processing
system used in sentence interpretation, whereas Chomsky advocated a
model involving whole sentence processing using some form of
`transformational' system. Both men have juxtaposing theories on how
it is that all humans manage to obtain grammar and seeing as
chronologically Skinner was first, here is a good place to start. B.F
Skinner was a Behavioural Psychologist and was unconcerned with any
`underlying mental processes' that may have been occurring during
learning and denounced these `un-observables' as fictitious. Instead
he was concerned with the observable materialistic nature of
behaviour. He felt that there was no `underlying' meaning to words
and that verbal behaviour was due to the conditioning that occurs
between the words and the reinforcement properties of a stimulus.
This does not just apply to physical reinforcement stimulation: `that
if you ask for "a glass of water", you get one', but also social
reinforcement in the form of praise and encouragement i.e. `well
done'. This reinforcement is an important concept, and past
experiences of verbal behaviour are important in determining whether
they will be used again. Skinner used the phrase `Verbal Operant
Conditioning' where a verbal response that occurs in a given
situation and is followed by a reinforcer becomes more likely to
occur again in the same situation. Skinner identified five separate
classes of `Verbal Operant' : Mands, Tacts, Ethoics, Textuals and
IntraVerbals ( cited in Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981).
He also explained grammatical acquisition using an `Autoclitic', but
seeing as the `Autoclitic' uses all five of the `Verbal Operants', a
brief explanation of their characteristics had better be given first.

The Mand is based on the speaker conveying a command or request for

something which is met with it's production. A child knows from it's
past history that if it says "milk" it will most probably get milk
(milk becomes the reinforcer). The Mand is rooted in the idea of
`com-Mand' and `de-Mand'. Tacts on the other hand, are based on
child's reference to non-verbal objects and the use of `naming'.
Reinforcement occurs through the praise for correct naming i.e.
child says "cat" and mother says "good girl, that is a cat". The
Echoic Operant is the imitation of speech and can be reinforced by a
variety of means including "repeat after me". Textual is the reading
part of the `Verbal Operants'. The last, but by no means the least is
the Intraverbal operant. This is a form of `word association' where a
certain word will control which word is to proceed after it, that
only certain words can go after the word that has just been said (a
sort of "table, chair" game but involving all types of words).
According to Skinner this process is going on all the time whenever
we use a word, only a certain set of words can go after it.

So we arrive at the `Autoclitic'. This is a form of commentary made

upon one of the `Verbal Operants' described above. Correct grammar
uses the correct order of `verbal operant' and Autoclitic comment.
But Autoclitic comments also take on the form of having verbal
operant characteristics. An example (taken from Psychology of
Language : Paivio & Begg 1981) is probably needed : `the primary
[verbal] operant is the tact `John is in Montreal'. If the speaker
says " I hear that John is in Montreal" we have an example of
autoclitic words in which `I hear that' is a comment on a primary
[verbal] operant that is presumably an echoic (that is, the speaker
heard that someone say that John is in Montreal'). Still confused ?
`John is in Montreal' is the primary `part' of the sentence
involving the words being produced individually using the verbal
operants. Then the sentence is commented upon by the `autoclitic'
which itself has the characteristic of being echoic. If the
sentence was "I read in the paper that John is in Montreal" then the
autoclitic comment would have a `textual' (reading) characteristic.
Correct Verbal Operant and Autoclitic comment (correct grammar) will
be positively reinforced by praise e.t.c and said again, whereas
incorrect grammar will be negatively reinforced ; `no that's wrong'
and not be said again (such as a child who says a gibberish sentence
like `Montreal read in paper that is John I the') . The complexities
of studying such a model, in dissecting each sentence into it's
appropriate verbal operant and autoclitic parts, abound.

So what evidence have Skinner and Behaviourists produced to validate

their claims? Guess et al 1968 (cited in Psychology of Language :
Paivio & Begg 1981) described how they taught a mentally retarded
girl to make correct grammatical utterances using positive
reinforcement of praise and food. Studies on adults giving
reinforcement for certain nouns and plurals, found an increase in an
occurrence of correct responses, if `praise' was issued (see Holtz &
Azrin Conditioning Verbal Behaviour 1966). In general, children are
considered to acquire correct grammar through reinforcement of their
verbal teachers (particularly their mothers). Yet there is little
evidence to support such a claim. Not only has it been found that
there is no relationship between child correct grammar and parental
positive reinforcement it seems that parents are only interested in
the correctness of a child's meaning (see Slobin 1975). Also some
adult subjects are un- aware of the relationship between correct and
incorrect responses and the reinforcement that they receive because
of their grammar ( see Konecni & Slamecka 1972). Reinforcement does
not seem to occur in the right context but it also seems not to be
noticed. Many (including the linguist Noam Chomsky) have advocated
that a behavioural stimulus - response system involving
reinforcement and a `finite grammar' model, cannot explain the
rapid, creative and complex nature of language. Chomsky `stepped
into the limelight' in the debate on language and grammar
acquisition in his Review Of Verbal Behaviour by B.F Skinner
(Chomsky 1959). It is to him that attention will now be turned.

Chomsky argued that there was no way that a child can obtain a
language from only the `primary linguistic data'(Psycholinguistics
2nd Edition : Slobin 1969) that the child receives from it's
teachers and environment. He prescribed that an infant enters this
world with a predisposition to learn a language fluently, and this
predisposition is encased in our biological make-up, innate to all
humans. (A sort of `Language Acquisition Device' or `L.A.D' as it has
now become known). One of the manifestations of this was in the form
of a `generative grammar', that had the ability to `generate' and
create all the words in a linguistic grammar that he viewed
Skinner's `finite grammar' (though capable of producing) was far too
limited in it's application.

Chomsky defined this `generative grammar' as : `finite set of rules

operating on a finite vocabulary to generate an infinite number of
acceptable grammatical sentences and no un-acceptable ones' (quoted
from Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981). So, from a small
number words, using `some rules', we can create a vast (infinite)
number of words, you can in fact boil down all the words in the
English Language to around 500 or so. What did the form of this
generative grammar take the shape of , and what are these `some
rules' that are mentioned above? Chomsky explained the acquisition
of grammar using a process of transformation or `Transformational
Grammar' which is perhaps `the physical form', and the rules that
are `generative grammar'. As may be apparent `transformational
grammar' involves the changing of sentences into other states. They
are metamorphosed into their `deep' and `surface' structures by a
set of rules, or phrase structures. These two `deep' and `surface'
structures are then interpreted according to their phonological and
semantic meaning. The theory is considerably more complex than can
be explained here, and has been revised many times by Chomsky since
it's first publication in 1957 (see Chomsky 1965). The result of
this, is that once a child can master these rules and
transformations, it has the ability to create and expand on his/her
grammar by using these rules to create new sentences that it has not
heard before (which `finite grammar cannot as the child needs to use
or hear the word and find out it's reinforcement properties). A
great deal of creativity occurs in child grammatical utterances.
Chomsky viewed this creativity as a very important aspect.

So what evidence is there to support Chomsky's view of

`transformational generative grammar' and that this is an innate
biological species specific trait ? All languages of the world share
similar characteristics of using nouns, verbs, pronouns, though not
necessarily in a similar order. Grammar and complex language usage
seem also to be a `uniquely human capability' as no other species on
the planet seem to posses such proficiency as humans, though there
have been some successes in teaching `sign language' to Chimpanzees,
it is viewed that any ability that they grasp, cannot be seen as
Homologous, similar in structure, to the complex human abilities of
language (see Modularity, Domain Specificity and the Development of
Language : E. Bates). One theoretical concept, so abstract, so
explicit, and usually overlooked, is proposed by S. Pinker & P. Bloom
in their article Natural Language And Natural Selection (Behavioral
and Brain Sciences 1990). The fact that all human languages use
symbol manipulation to make references to something else that they
(the symbols) are not physically related to, i.e. some form of
`arbitrariness', is an important aspect . The sign is only arbitrary
to the thing it comes to represent. For example, the sign for `Genus
Canus' can be dog, chien, skili or even ##stlg, it does not matter as
long as the word, or sign used, comes to represent the object/concept
and is in no way physically related to it. ( Onomatopoeia will not be
discussed). But say that every time you wanted to talk about `Genus
Canus' you had to produce one, or draw an exact copy, this is not
arbitrary or particularly practical. Pinker & Bloom defined this as
some form of `universal grammar' that is an innate ability in all of
us that uses this `arbitrary symbol manipulation' adapted to it's
present complex form by the process of Natural Selection. This human
symbol manipulation similarity is an important aspect (Watch out do
not confuse your grammars : `universal grammar' (arbitrary symbols )
is different from generative grammar ( rules used to manipulate these
arbitrary symbols).
 Other evidence to support Chomskian claims, can be found in the
study of language deficient patients (aphasia). It has long been
known that damage to the left hemisphere near the motor cortex
(Broca's Area) causes a loss of speech, especially to grammatical
elements. One patient could not access the word `would' (grammatical
word), but could access the word `wood' (content word) (see Marin Et
Al 1976 cited in Psycholinguistics D. I Slobin). Is this
localisation of a grammatical area in the left hemisphere ? Further
evidence (using P.E.T) has indicated that a conclusion of this
nature is much too naive.

There is a volume of evidence to support Chomsky's claims of an

innate generative grammar, though it is difficult (and unscientific)
to introspect whether a transformational process occurs during
grammar acquisition, this would seem considerably more likely than a
`finite' system. These days `generative grammars' have become a
widely accepted theory in linguistics and cognitive science, for
they manage to answer more of the questions on the rapid and
creative nature of grammar acquisition than a Skinnerian, or even a
Neo Behaviourist, model can see fit. (Of course behaviourist's do
not feel this way and defend their claims adamantly - see What Are
The Scope Of Radical Behaviourist Theory : Questions To B.F Skinner
By S. Harnad - question F). Recently, contemporary debate has been
focused upon the nature of this Language Acquisition Device, which
Chomsky proclaims. Just how much innate language ability does a
child have when he/she enters this world ? (see Modularity, Domain
Specificity And The Development Of Language 1994 - E. Bates). What
are the semantic (meaning) components of transformational, and most
grammar systems used in language? (This is of particular importance
to Psychologists). The detailed and vast nature of language, the
difficulty in collecting empirical data during child language
acquisition and the fact that language touches on so many areas of
Psychology, make validation of Chomsky and Skinner's theories, and
any language theories, particularly difficult. Though it would seem
more favourable, from the evidence, to accept `some parts' of
Chomsky's theory.

REFERENCES

E. Bates (1994), Modularity, Domain Specificity and The Development

of Language - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Harnad ( ), What Are The Scope and Limits Of Radical Behaviorist

Theory - py104 Explaining the Mind handout

Paivio & Begg (1981), Psychology of Language - Prentice Hall Inc

(1981)

S. Pinker (1994), Language Acquisition - Behavioral and Brain

Sciences

S. Pinker & P.Bloom (1990), Natural Language and Natural Selection

- Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13
 D. Slobin (1979), Psycholinguistics Second Edition - Scott, Foreman
and Co (1979,1974, 1971)
Nature: Universal Grammar Nurture: Behaviorist Reinforcement

Universal Grammar is a theory proposed by
Chomsky that claims children have the ability to
learn any language. This is due to what he calls
Universal Grammar. He proposes that their is
a natural ability in the mind of every human that
allows them to learn , and that is how language is
further developed. Being born with every linguistic
tool that one would need, gives humans the ability
to learn language essentially on their own.
The behaviorist theory is when negative and positive reinforcements are used
to gain a desired result. This is often used in classrooms in which teachers use
consequences or rewards to motivate a student to succeed. Skinner believed
that this nurture style behavior was the reason for language development in
children. His claims were that children are rewarded for correct use of
language, and either punished or no action at all for incorrect use of language.
Children weren't actually learning language, but instead they were learning
about rewards and consequences through the behaviorists theory.

Chomsky VS Skinner
There are two basic theories for language acquisition. Noam Chomsky’s
theory, which is believed people have a basic pattern of learning
language inside of their brain since they were born. On the other hand,
B. F. Skinner’s theory which is believed people have to be taught how to
speak by someone for language acquisition. I mostly agree with
Chomsky theory and partly Skinner theory. People usually don’t
remember how they learned to speak, but everybody speaks their first
language without any problems. Some Children even speak more than
two languages naturally. Language is a unique system which only
humans have. However, if it’s correct rules or grammars of language
people might have to study. There also seems to be critical period for
learning language.
People speak their language without studying. It means people already
have an ability of language pattern in their brain. When I was in
elementary school there were Japanese classes. I studied writing and
reading but not speaking. I could already speak Japanese. I have a two
year old niece. She has already started speaking. Of course she has
never studied. So, people must have some kind of language ability
innately.
According to an article I saw in kccesl.tripod.com, Chomsky says
“human brain contains a language acquisition device (LAD) which
automatically analyzes the components of speech a child hears.” I
support this theory. The human brain has special function, unlikely
other animals. That’s why only humans speak languages. Learning
language for a human is very easy because the human brain already
contains ability of language, so even children start to speak language
naturally in their early age.
People in young age are very easy to acquire more than two languages
at same time. Even if those languages are very different, and their
parents don’t speak those languages. It also proves people must have
an ability to function in any language innately.
In contrast theory, there is a very famous case. A girl, Genie, was
language got deprived during her critical period, which is considered to
be between 4 and 12, of learning first language, and she couldn’t
acquire her language skill normally even though she studied. This fact
supports B. F. Skinner’s theory. However, this is a very unusual case.
She might not have only language problem, but even mental problem
since she was locked in a room for 13 years. There is also a proof that
Genie was about speak without studying right after she was locked up.
“since her mother reported that she heard Genie saying words right
after she was locked up” from THE CIVILIZING OF GENIE by MAYA
PINES.
Since Genie’s case was discovered, Chomsky added to his theory that
“the innate mechanisms that underlie this competence must be
activated by exposure to language at the proper time” from THE
CIVILIZING OF GENIE by MAYA PINES. This theory got little closer to B.
F Skinner’s theory. Even young children speak language without
learning, but they often make mistakes in their speech. While they are
growing, their number of mistakes in their speech decreases. They are
learning how to speak, so in this case some part of Skinner’s theory is
also correct.
Similarly, learning second language for people in older age supports
Skinner’s theory. People have to keep learning language to improve
their second language. It hardly ever gets perfect because people have
to learn all rules and structures from beginning which don’t apply to
their first language. If we have learning language system innately, why
can’t we easily adjust to speak another language? We can’t apply
Chomsky’s theory at all in this case.
In conclusion, until people reach critical period of learning language,
people learn their language automatically without being taught because
of their innate ability of language. Furthermore, if there are more than
two languages which children hear, children will be able to acquire both
of them at the same time. Nevertheless, the ability of language has to be
activated in the first place by something. Otherwise, people never begin
to acquire their language. Once people past the critical period, it is hard
to learn any language. Thereby, people in older age usually have
problem learning second language. Both Chomsky’s and Skinner’s
theories are correct in different cases and language acquisition system
works with both of them together.